Please Explain! The Proponents Of The Retrospective Law Change Need To Front Up
Those responsible for pushing a retrospective law change that could wipe out the rights of tens of thousands of New Zealanders must now front up to provide a formal 'please- explain'.
That's the call from Scott Russell, the lawyer leading the Banking Class Action against ANZ and ASB, who has formally written to Cameron Brewer, MP as Chair of Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Committee urging him to call key decision-makers and proponents of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill to publicly explain the rationale for this extraordinary intervention. The Committee has the power to compel individuals to appear and a more clear-cut case for using that power would be hard to imagine.
'The Government is rewriting the law half-way through an active legal case to benefit two powerful Australian-owned banks – and no one seems to be taking responsibility for making the decision,' said Russell. 'Hon Scott Simpson, Commerce Minister says the banks didn't ask for it. The banks haven't commented. MBIE won't release the documents. And the public is being asked to accept it all on blind trust. Enough. It's time for answers.'
Russell's submission urges the Select Committee to summon the following to 'Please Explain':
The Chair and Chief Executives of ANZ and ASB to explain their role in the process;
Senior MBIE officials to justify the sudden shift to retrospective legislation following private meetings with the banks;
The Reserve Bank to provide any evidence backing claims that the law change is needed to protect financial stability.
'If their rationale is sound, let's hear it. Because right now, no one has offered a credible explanation for why a law change ruled out during the public consultation stage was suddenly resurrected behind closed doors – and timed perfectly to potentially limit the liability of two banks in a live court case.'
The Government has refused to release unredacted versions of the Regulatory Impact Statement and delayed key OIA responses until after the public submission period closes on 23 June. The Ombudsman is now investigating.
'The Select Committee process cannot be allowed to rubber-stamp a law change that overrides consumer rights and undermines public trust – especially when those responsible won't even show up to explain it,' Russell said. 'If this is in the public interest, let the public hear why.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
How to make sick pay and holiday pay more equitable
Analysis: As the Government reviews the Holidays Act, we would urge them to consider how they could build more equity in their approach to sick pay and public holidays. Currently each employee in Aotearoa New Zealand receives 10 days of sick pay per year once they have been working for their organisation for six months, up to a maximum accrual of 20 days. Some organisations offer more days per year or longer accruals or both, as part of their enhanced benefits. The draft bill proposes shifting from an annual entitlement to an accruals system, using pro-rata pay, but this could go further. Positively, accruing paid sick leave on a pro-rata basis from the day we started our first job makes access to paid leave more immediate. If we add to this removal of a maximum accumulation and manage it in a centralised government system (a little like ACC but with individual accrual) transferrable between jobs, we could create more equity in the sick pay system for employees and employers. This could be managed in the IRD system. When an employee changes job, their accrued sick leave moves with them, and while the dollar value may not equate directly if they move to a higher earning job it is still better than beginning accrual again. Regardless of how many hours or days a week a person works, currently everybody receives 10 days annually from each job they work. A part-time employee may also be working more than one job and so could technically have double or triple the number of sick days a full-time worker has. Though this probably only occurs in a minority of cases, it does create inequity in the system. Accrual based on hours worked can negate this anomaly. By creating a system where sick leave is centralised, it puts employers on an even playing field. All employers pay the pro-rata amount in their pay runs per employee into the employee's centralised pot, rather than only paying when an employee is sick. Employees would earn their sick leave not at 10 days a year, but at a percentage of their pay equivalent to 10 days per year (about 4 percent). Imagine taking this a step further and enabling families to combine sick pay, so that employees can better balance the workload when there is a need to care for a child or an older person. Therefore, all employers contribute to sick pay, whether their employees are sick or not, which may decrease indirect discrimination. This potentially takes pressure off employers when people are sick for longer as their pay is already accrued. We know that sometimes employees see their sick leave as an extension of their annual leave, but unlimited accrual and the associated benefits of being able to have paid leave if you are sick for an extended period could discourage this thinking. Similarly, some employers may discourage their employees from taking sick leave, particularly if this results in a direct replacement cost. Accrual can resolve this issue as it is paid from the employees' pot, not the employer's pocket. The flipside is that employees may try to save their sick pay by not taking time off when they are sick, in case they are ever in a long-term sickness situation. This would have to be carefully managed. Although discrimination based on characteristics such as gender or disability is illegal in New Zealand, we do know that indirect discrimination often occurs. People are not chosen for a role because they may cost their employer more in sick leave. This may help to negate this. The current stand down of six months before being able to access sick pay means those more likely to change jobs, who are also often more vulnerable workers, have less access and a higher likelihood of it being reset. Some employees may experience multiple points in time where they do not have access to sick pay. Part-time workers are more likely to change jobs and have precarious employment. This means that although they might technically have access to more paid sick in the current model, they may not get the opportunity to use it. In terms of public holidays, these are currently given to an employee who works on the day on which they fall. Although in theory this makes sense when we look at a standard 8.30am to 5pm, Monday to Friday working week, it can also create unfairness. A classic example is a full-time hairdresser who traditionally works Tuesday to Saturday, missing out on five of our 12 public holidays in 2024, essentially getting five fewer paid days off work a year. 'Mondayisation' has privileged those who work traditional working weeks. So how can we address this in the Holidays Act reform? I propose that public holidays should also be pro-rated. Therefore, if you work five days a week you would receive 12 public holidays a year. Someone who works two days a week would receive two fifths of their public holidays per year, or four days. This would be added to annual leave, but they would still be expected to take each public holiday they work off, and use annual leave if needed. Although this might feel unfair to a person who works part-time on a Monday, it puts more fairness in the system.
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
MPs Caught Swearing As David Seymour Faces Questions On Regulatory Reviews
Minister for Regulation, David Seymour, has denied regulatory reviews carried out by the ministry have been for anyone's political benefit, in a tense select committee hearing at Parliament in which two Labour MPs had to apologise for swearing. Seymour appeared before the Finance and Expenditure Committee as part of Scrutiny Week, to face questions on the budget for the Ministry of Regulation. So far, the ministry has carried out reviews into the early childhood education, agricultural and horticultural products, and hairdressing sectors. A fourth review into telecommunications has also been announced. Labour MP Duncan Webb questioned Seymour over whether he or the ACT Party had any connections to donors or lobbyists in those sectors, who would stand to benefit from the reviews. "There's a real concern that it looks like there's an appearance of regulatory reviews being chosen to benefit parties connected politically," Webb said. "How can we have confidence that the decisions are not politically influenced, and are made entirely on the basis of where [the] best wins and values for New Zealanders are." Seymour accused Webb of being improper with his questioning. "The idea that we decided to do a review of the early childhood sector because someone may or may not, I'm not even sure, have donated to the ACT Party a long time ago is frankly fatuous," he said. "My main interaction with the dairy industry is probably through a flat white." Ministry chief executive Gráinne Moss said the review into agricultural and horticultural products was suggested by the ministry itself, to the minister. Webb said the minister should have no part to play in deciding what sectors to review. 'For f***'s sake' - MPs caught swearing The session got off to a tense start, after Labour's Deborah Russell was heard saying "for f***'s sake" during Seymour's opening remarks. National's Ryan Hamilton raised it as a point of order. While committee chair Cameron Brewer was fine to carry on, Seymour made Russell repeat herself. She then withdrew her comment and apologised. Later on, Webb accused Seymour of "making s*** up" regarding the ministry's work on flour dust standards. Seymour also bristled at Labour MP Megan Woods interrupting Moss while she gave an answer, and threatened that ACT would release a video of the Labour MPs' behaviour. After the hearing, Seymour said he was "astonished" by the swearing. "The amount of swearing from Labour MPs, I've never seen that before. Clearly, they're very angry about something, but they were just a rabble. Their various accusations were completely untrue. And really, you have to wonder if these guys are taking it seriously."
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Please Explain! The Proponents Of The Retrospective Law Change Need To Front Up
Those responsible for pushing a retrospective law change that could wipe out the rights of tens of thousands of New Zealanders must now front up to provide a formal 'please- explain'. That's the call from Scott Russell, the lawyer leading the Banking Class Action against ANZ and ASB, who has formally written to Cameron Brewer, MP as Chair of Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Committee urging him to call key decision-makers and proponents of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill to publicly explain the rationale for this extraordinary intervention. The Committee has the power to compel individuals to appear and a more clear-cut case for using that power would be hard to imagine. 'The Government is rewriting the law half-way through an active legal case to benefit two powerful Australian-owned banks – and no one seems to be taking responsibility for making the decision,' said Russell. 'Hon Scott Simpson, Commerce Minister says the banks didn't ask for it. The banks haven't commented. MBIE won't release the documents. And the public is being asked to accept it all on blind trust. Enough. It's time for answers.' Russell's submission urges the Select Committee to summon the following to 'Please Explain': The Chair and Chief Executives of ANZ and ASB to explain their role in the process; Senior MBIE officials to justify the sudden shift to retrospective legislation following private meetings with the banks; The Reserve Bank to provide any evidence backing claims that the law change is needed to protect financial stability. 'If their rationale is sound, let's hear it. Because right now, no one has offered a credible explanation for why a law change ruled out during the public consultation stage was suddenly resurrected behind closed doors – and timed perfectly to potentially limit the liability of two banks in a live court case.' The Government has refused to release unredacted versions of the Regulatory Impact Statement and delayed key OIA responses until after the public submission period closes on 23 June. The Ombudsman is now investigating. 'The Select Committee process cannot be allowed to rubber-stamp a law change that overrides consumer rights and undermines public trust – especially when those responsible won't even show up to explain it,' Russell said. 'If this is in the public interest, let the public hear why.'
